Recently, the Department of Justice highlighted enforcement efforts that allegedly aimed at protecting  Americans from transnational fraud schemes.  Here are some of the cases discussed:

United States v. Troy Murray and United States v. Cutter Murray. On June 11, 2025, DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch filed an Information in SDFL charging Troy Murray also known as “Steve Dixson” with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. According to court documents, Troy Murray sold to lottery fraud scammers, including Jamaicans, his lead list database containing the names, and personal information of over seven million elderly American consumers. These lists were allegedly then used to defraud elderly victims. Additionally, Cutter Murray, Troy Murray’s son, will plead guilty to one count of money laundering for receiving and then laundering $1.6 million of the fraudulent funds Troy Murray obtained.

United States v. Jimmy Smith. On April 1, 2025 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced charges against Jimmy Smith, 30, a citizen of Jamaica, who resided in Hinesville, Georgia. According to court documents, Smith and others defrauded at least four victims residing in Connecticut, New York, Texas, and California, by telling them they had won a Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes and needed to pay taxes or money to claim the prize.

United States v. Charles Uchenna Nwadavid. On April 9, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of Massachusetts announced charges against Charles Uchenna Nwadavid, a citizen of Nigeria who was arrested after landing at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. In January 2024, a grand jury indicted Nawadavid on one count of mail fraud and two counts of money laundering. Between approximately 2016 to September 2019, Nwadavid allegedly participated in romance scams that tricked victims into sending money abroad.  He plead guilty to mail fraud, aiding and abetting money laundering and money laundering on June 26, 2025.  The DOJ states “romance schemes”  generally begin when the “bad actors” recruit victims through advertisements for online relationships on dating or social media websites. Individuals perpetuating romance scams often create fictitious profiles and then use them to gain victims’ trust through a purported romantic relationship. Perpetrators then direct their victims to send money or to conduct financial transactions involving other victims’ money under false pretenses, such as an urgent need for money to secure a multi-million dollar inheritance or to pay for an unexpected hospitalization.

Another romance scheme can involve investing in cryptocurrency. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio (USAO) has filed a civil complaint in forfeiture against 8,207,578 Tether (USDT) cryptocurrency, valued at more than $8.2 million in February, 2025.   In that case, investigators found that scammers initially contacted the victims through seemingly misdirected, or “wrong number,” text messages. The fraudster then gained the victim’s trust and affection using various manipulative tactics. Once trust was established with the victim, the fraudster would share how much success they, or someone they knew, had with investing in cryptocurrency. This personal testimonial lessened any uncertainties the victims may have had about virtual currencies and eventually had the intended effect to persuade the victim to proceed with the investment.

The fraudster would then guide the victim, step-by-step, on how to open a legitimate cryptocurrency account, most often with a U.S. based virtual currency exchange such as Crypto.com or Coinbase. The scammer would walk the victim through the entire process of transferring money from their bank to the newly created cryptocurrency account. Next, the victim received instructions on how to transfer the purchased cryptocurrency assets to an online “investment platform,” which would turn out to be a fake site created by the fraudsters to look like a legitimate company. Information on the platforms promised lucrative returns which encouraged victims to invest further. However, once the victim transferred their funds to the “investment platform” they unknowingly handed over complete control and ownership of their funds to the scammer.  These fake cryptocurrency trading platforms or fake versions of official crypto wallets to trick unsuspecting victims. These fake websites usually have similar but slightly different domain names from the sites they attempt to mimic.

The complaint also outlines that the perpetrators of such investment fraud schemes often allow victims to withdraw a portion of their “profits” early on in the scheme to build trust and reinforce their belief that the “investment platform” was legitimate. But as the scheme progressed, victims were unable to withdraw their funds and given excuses as to why they could not access their funds. For example, the fraudsters referred to a fake “tax” requirement, stating that taxes must be paid on the proceeds generated from the investment platform. Knowing that the scam would run its course soon, the fraudsters used last-ditch efforts to lie to victims that they had to pay a tax. Ultimately, victims were locked out of their account on the investment platform and lost their funds.

A woman in Lake County, Ohio became the target of such a scam when she responded to a text on her phone from an unknown number in November 2023. She began sharing information via text with the person and the two bonded over topics such as hobbies and religion. Over a period of time, the victim followed instructions from her new “friend” and opened an account at Crypto.com and then transferred funds into the account. When the victim wanted to withdraw funds, her “friend,” relented and said additional payments were needed and she complied. When the victim no longer had any funds left after making additional payments, her “friend” began to threaten her that he would send his friends to “take care of” her friends and family. Having lost her entire life savings of approximately $663,352, including funds from her Roth IRA, the victim filed a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center to report the losses in June 2024. The FBI Cleveland Division subsequently initiated an investigation.

United States v. 679,981.22 Tether, et al. On June 3, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio announced the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint against 679,981.22 in the Tether cryptocurrency suspected of being fraudulently obtained as part of a romance/investment scam. According to court documents, one victim was targeted via LinkedIn and another victim was targeted though the dating App “Coffee Meets Bagel.”

The experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at Conaway & Strickler, PC are here to protect your rights, reputation, and future should you be under investigation. With decades of experience in defending traditional financial fraud paired with a deep understanding of the newer world of cryptocurrency, our firm possesses the skills and expertise to assist those accused of any type of fraud.  Call or contact us online for a confidential consultation.

26 U.S.C. § 7201 defines what is tax evasion.  It states in relevant part that any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Federal prosecutors might also add additional charges beyond tax evasion. Those charges could include conspiracy charges, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, or tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206.  The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) recently released its Tax Fraud Report for fiscal year 2023. It states that off the 64,124 cases reported to the Commission in fiscal year 2023, 363 involved tax fraud (down 27% since FY 2019).  It is unclear if this downward trend will continue.

Recently, a man in New Jersey plead guilty to tax evasion. According to the Department of Justice, “for tax years 2015 and 2016, Matthew Tucci, of West Long Branch, NJ, filed tax returns that stated he owed more than $2 million in taxes for both years. Despite admitting that he owed those taxes, Tucci did not fully pay them when they were due. Instead, Tucci purchased real estate and engaged in a series of transactions designed to conceal his interest in those properties.

In 2017, the IRS sent notices to Tucci that he owed taxes, interest, and penalties for 2015 and 2016. After receiving these notices, Tucci transferred multiple properties to an entity owned by another individual, but he continued to exert control over at least two of them. Of the two properties Tucci continued to control, he sold one and refinanced the other. Tucci used the proceeds from these transactions to pay his personal expenses rather than his tax debts. In 2019, Tucci submitted documents to the IRS that falsely claimed that he had no connection to the entity that owned the 12 properties.

He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.”

In another case, a Florida businessman was sentenced to prison for tax evasion.  According to the  Department of Justice, “David Albert Fletcher, of Deltona, Florida owned and operated furniture liquidations businesses, including Century Liquidators. For tax years 2004 through 2013, Fletcher did not timely file his federal income tax returns or pay the taxes he owed. After an audit, the IRS assessed a total of $1.7 million in taxes, interest, and penalties against him.

To evade collection of these taxes, Fletcher concealed his income and assets from the IRS. For example, Fletcher used nominees to hide his purchases of luxury vehicles, including Rolls Royces. Fletcher also filed false income tax returns that understated his income by several million dollars, and when an IRS special agent interviewed him, Fletcher falsely represented the amount of income he earned.

In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger for the Middle District of Florida ordered Fletcher to serve three years of supervised release and to pay approximately $7,112,689 in restitution to the United States.”

Recently, Meg Strickler was able to ensure that no tax evasion charges were filed against her client.  Contact us if you think you might be facing tax evasion or tax fraud charges.  We are here to help.

The “newer” question on page 1 of the Tax Form 1040 now has a question that states, “At any time during the past year did you receive any financial interest in virtual currency?” In 2019, this question was only on Schedule 1.  As of 2020, it is on page 1 of the Tax Form 1040.  This is specifically targeted to combat cryptocurrency tax evasion.

Under 26 U.S.C § 7206(1), it is a criminal offense to file a tax return the filer knows is materially false.  So, if you do not check that box on that first page, AND have substantial income in crypto, you might be targeted by the IRS.  Remember cryptocurrencies are essentially similar to common stocks.  This means a taxpayer must report their gains in cryptocurrencies on Form 8949.  These gains are passed through to Schedule D on personal returns.  The filer is responsible for paying capital gains tax on the net gain for the year.  The government is long since versed in understanding the intricacies of the market like the role of hardware wallets, the use of DEXs, on-chain information, and how to track crypto movement across distributed ledgers.   Please see here for a recent  example of a case where non-payment of federal income tax on cryptocurrency earnings led to a conviction.

Contact Conaway & Strickler, PC if you have any questions on these complex federal criminal tax issues.  Our experienced federal criminal defense attorneys are here to help.

• Wire fraud
• Mail fraud
• Bank fraud
• Tax fraud (tax evasion or false statements)
• Healthcare fraud/FCA
• Medicare/Medicaid fraud
• PPP loan or COVID relief fraud
• Securities fraud
• Mortgage fraud
• Immigration or visa fraud
• Government contract fraud
• Identity theft or benefits fraud
• Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services
• Anti kickbacks
• AML

The FBI gives this list of frauds and the DOJ publishes some of their cases here.

Fraud investigations can begin in a number of ways. In many cases, they are triggered by:

• A whistleblower or former employee
• A suspicious activity report
• A suspicious activity report (SAR) from a bank or financial institution
• Data flagged by automated fraud detection software
• A referral from another federal agency (e.g., IRS, SBA, USPS, HHS)
• A civil audit or regulatory review that uncovers irregularities
• Investigative journalism or public tips
• Problems in real estate transactions.  (FINCEN’s new rule extends Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) obligations to investment advisers involved in these transactions)

Once red flags are detected, the matter is referred to a federal investigative agency. These can include:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI)
• Office of Inspector General (OIG)
• Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
• Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Small Business Administration (SBA)

If you have been contacted by federal agents FOR ANY REASON, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately.  Do not speak period.  If you have received a grand jury subpoena, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately.  If you have received a target letter, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately.  If you are being audited by the IRS, SBA, HHS or another agency, contact a federal criminal defense attorney immediately. It never hurts in this  last instance to have sage advice before the investigation goes any further.

At Conaway & Strickler, PC, we are here to help. Contact us to discuss your options.

Experienced federal criminal defense attorneys like those at Conaway & Strickler, PC may suggest early on about the possibility of entering into a “deferred prosecution agreement” which is essentially a contract with the Department of Justice. DPAs are frequently used in cases involving corporate fraud, bribery, and antitrust violations.  These pretrial agreements may involve an admission of wrongdoing, the payment of fines, and the implementation of compliance measures.  Charges may be dropped if the defendant complies with the requirements of the agreement.  Generally, the Assistant United States Attorney will file the criminal complaint and the DPA with the court, so it is of public record. This will be accompanied by a formal request to the court that any prosecution be delayed according to the terms of the DPA, allowing the defendant to fulfill its agreed-upon actions.  This is very similar to conditional discharge / pre trial diversion agreements found at the state level.

An example of a DPA would be one that was entered in to by the DOJ and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc in August 2023 in response to the company’s involvement in a price fixing conspiracy involving several pharmaceuticals.   As seen in this example, terms can include paying a fine, waiving certain rights, agreeing to a factual basis for the charges, and an agreement to cooperate and compliance monitoring and of course, agreeing to what will happen if there is a breach of the agreement.

The central benefit to entering in to a DPA is that the individual or business entity is not convicted of any crime. It offers an opportunity to have the federal criminal charges dismissed or dropped once the accused completes all the required conditions.

Here is an another example of a DPA entered in to with the NDGA and Avanir Pharmaceuticals.  This pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Aliso Viejo, California, was charged for paying kickbacks to a physician to induce prescriptions of its drug Nuedexta.   Of note in that case – the Northern District of Ohio indicted four individuals, including former Avanir employees and one of the top prescribers of Nuedexta in the country, who were involved in the kickback scheme.  So, the company itself entered in to a DPA but there was still fall out with respect to some individuals and receiving criminal indictments.

Early intervention is key in a successful resolution in health care criminal matters.  We have extensively blogged about health care fraud.   Contact us if you need an experienced federal criminal defense litigator.  Our firm has vast experience in white collar criminal investigations including False Claims Act and antitrust investigations.

According to the NDGA DOJ news release:

According to Acting U.S. Attorney Moultrie, the charges and other information presented in court: Between approximately October 2017 and January 2020, Milan Patel, Bart Ross, Mark Melnick, Anthony Salandra, and Charles Parrino conspired to trade securities—primarily short-term call options—in large, publicly traded companies based on materially false rumors about those companies that they generated and disseminated. These materially false rumors were intended to increase the price of the securities (both the underlying stock and options).

Call options are essentially a contract that gives the options’ holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy shares of the underlying stock at a set price per share—the option’s strike price—on or before a set future date (the option’s expiration date). Generally, the holder of a call option benefits when the price of the underlying stock increases. Short-term call options are ones that generally expire within a week.

Ross, Salandra, and Parrino, were formerly registered brokers with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and were responsible for drafting some of the fraudulent rumors. The conspirators would often refine a proposed rumor by exchanging drafts among themselves using the Trillian instant messaging application.

Melnick was a day trader and T3 Live Senior Trading Strategist who often provided technical evaluations on whether a particular false rumor would be successful. These rumors were carefully crafted to: (a) appear plausible enough to other market participants to move the price of the underlying security; and (b) move the price of the security in a particular direction—namely move the stock or option price up—so that Patel and the other conspirators could profitably trade on the rumors.

Patel was responsible for disseminating the rumor via Trillian to multiple accounts, which would in turn result in the false rumor being distributed over one or more market subscription services, including Trade The News, TradeXchange, and Benzinga, as well as various Twitter accounts.

Before Patel disseminated the rumor, the co-conspirators would acquire a position in the publicly traded company that was the subject of the rumor. The co-conspirators purchased short-term call options often mere seconds before Patel disseminated the rumor. The conspirators often purchased short-term call options because the price of such options is more sensitive than the price of the underlying stock. The conspirators profited from their scheme by selling the options (or other securities) after they increased in price. They would then sell off their positions shortly after the rumor was disseminated and the price of the option or underlying stock had increased.

Most of these defendants ended up with a plea with one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud.  When you see a case where the original situation with most defendants are charged in an indictment, and it ends with a plea to a one count, criminal information – this is good news. This means that the federal criminal defense lawyer has done their job well and worked out a resolution that limits the sentencing guidelines and ultimate months of incarceration.

In this case, if one has plead to Conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, the base offense level would be a 6.  There will be an increase pursuant to the chart on what the intended loss amount is.  There also can be enhancements such as:

• the number of victims
• being a registered broker at the time of the offense
• abuse of position of trust
• sophisticated means
• use of a special skill

Then, there can be levels taken off for acceptance of responsibility and zero point offender.  And finally, if the defendant has any criminal history the final number will be amended pursuant to Criminal History Category.  Once the final number is determined by the judge, the second part of the sentencing hearing will occur – discussing 3553 factors.

Contact an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer like Conaway & Strickler, PC. We have close to 30 years experience in federal criminal and SEC defense.

Jury Selection also known as Voir Dire

Jury selection is one of the most important parts of a federal criminal trial.  It will start with about 40 potential jurors brought in. Usually we move our chairs to the other side of the table to face them. We ask general questions, then individual questions. Then, we deliberate on who to choose. Then, the court asks us to do our strikes, and then a jury is empaneled.

This usually takes a full day.

Opening Statement

After the jury has been empaneled and sworn, and loads of logistical information is given to the jurors by the judge, then the federal district court judge will invite the AUSA to give their opening statement. Like the jury selection, the opening statement is a critical part of a federal criminal trial.

The purpose of the opening statement is to allow the parties to explain to the jury what the case is about. While the parties may discuss the evidence, and explain what they believe it will show, they are not allowed to make arguments about what they think the evidence means.

After the AUSA has given their opening statement, which they are required to do because they have the burden of proof, the federal district court judge will ask the defense attorney if (s)he wishes to give an opening statement. The judge asks this in the form of a question because the defense attorney is not required to give an opening statement.

In a criminal case, the federal criminal defense lawyer may either give an opening statement, waive the opening statement, or waive the opening statement at that time, instead giving their opening statement at the close of the AUSA’s case.  If this was a multi defendant trial, the judge usually will go in order as it is depicted on the most recent indictment.

Direct Examination begins after we are done with the opening statements.  The AUSA will begin calling their witnesses.  Federal criminal defense attorney teaches advanced evidence to LLM and JD students and GSU law and trial techniques at Emory Law.  She literally teaches the Federal Rules of Evidence on what comes in at trial and how to do direct and cross examinations to law students.

Most direct examinations include three stages:

1. Introduction and background of the witness.
2. Laying the foundation of their relation to the case
3. Substantive questions about the case.

Like all criminal cases, in a federal criminal trial, the entire burden of proof is on the AUSA. In thinking how to proceed, an AUSA will consider all elements of the crimes alleged. This is because every crime is made up of parts, or elements. The elements are set forth in the instructions to the jury. To prevail, the AUSA must prove each and every element of the crime. Consequently, the AUSA will call witnesses that have information they believe will help persuade the jury that an element has been satisfied.

Because this is direct examination, the AUSA may only ask open ended questions. This is often as simple as, “what happened next?” A question used for direct examination may not suggest an answer. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the AUSA to tell the witness what they think happened, and then ask the witness to agree. Thus, the AUSA cannot properly say “and the next thing that happened was….do you agree?” This leading question would constitute cross-examination. The party who called the witness may not “lead” the witness and may only ask direct examination questions. Such a leading question would likely prompt the objection of any of us federal criminal defense lawyers.

There are some exceptions to this rule, however, and some leading questions are allowed during direct examination. For example, Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence suggests that an AUSA may use cross-examination as necessary to “develop the witnesses testimony.” Leading questions may also be used with a “hostile witness.”

Once the witness has testified on direct, the defense lawyer will get to conduct Cross-Examination of the government’s witnesses.

We may ask questions of the government’s witness after the AUSA has completed their direct examination. Again, the defense attorney is not required to ask questions because they have no burden of proof. While there may be strategic reasons for waiving a witness, in some instances, we will engage in extensive and detailed questioning or cross-examination of the government witness.

Most cross-examination questions include the following:

1. We draft question to elicit any positive information from the witness.
2. We work to limit the damage done by the cross-examination.
3. We will impeach the witness where appropriate.

The defense attorney’s questioning can proceed by either direct or leading questions. A leading question is one that suggests the answer. This is called cross-examination. The purpose of cross-examination is to expand on the witness’s testimony, and possibly to show that the witness lacks credibility or that their fact statements are wrong or misleading.

Cross-examination may also be used by us defense attorneys to show the jury that the government witness lacks actual knowledge, or that their knowledge is limited. This is especially true for expert witnesses. To expand on the above example, a defense attorney may cross-examine a forensic computer expert by asking them questions to show that they lack credentials. A cross-examination like this might be a simple statement to the witness such as “you don’t have a computer science degree?”

At the end of the government’s case, when there are no more witnesses or evidence, the AUSA will tell the judge that they “rest.” This means the AUSA’s case is completed.

At this juncture, we will all orally ask for a Motion for Directed Verdict

In a federal criminal case, a motion for directed verdict is a motion requesting the judge to acquit the defendant as a matter of law. If the motion is granted, the case is done, and the defendant is declared the winner. A motion for directed verdict is also called a judgment as a matter of law.

While a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury, the first opportunity for a federal criminal defense attorney to make such a motion is after the government has rested its case. In the attorney’s motion, we will offer to the judge any applicable law and explain why, based on this law, the facts of the case entitle the defendant to be found not guilty. An AUSA may not make a motion for directed verdict after the defense has rested.

In a typical federal criminal trial, once the AUSA has indicated that the government has rested its case, the district court judge will instruct the bailiff to escort the jury out of the courtroom. The judge will then ask the defense attorney if they have a motion for directed verdict. If the answer is no, then the jury will be brought back into the courtroom and the case will continue. Motions for directed verdict are always made outside the presence of the jury.

A federal criminal defense attorney may also make a motion for directed verdict at the end of the attorney’s case; meaning, after the defense has indicated to the court that they rest. This is because, as indicated, Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Procedure allow a motion as a matter of law to be made any time before the jury has reached its verdict.

DEFENSE: 

The defendant in a criminal case enjoys a presumption of innocence. One of the benefits of this presumption is that a person accused of a crime does not have an obligation to prove their innocence to the jury. This means there is no obligation to call any witnesses or produce any evidence. However, depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, it may be in the your best interest to call witness or provide evidence.

So, should any of us federal criminal defense attorneys call a witnesses, just as when the AUSA calls witnesses, the attorney may only ask this witness direct examination question, and the AUSA may cross-examine this witness using leading questions.

One of the witnesses that is available only to the defense attorney is the defendant. In a criminal case the accused has the right to remain silent. Therefore, only the defense attorney can call the accused to the stand. Whether to call the accused as a witness is often one of the most difficult questions for a federal criminal defense attorney. However, the final answer to this question resides completely with YOU. The decision must not be made by the lawyer.

Once all of the defense attorneys call all of their witnesses (if any), they will indicate to the court that “the defense rests.”

Next, we move to The Government’s Rebuttal Witnesses

The defense may call rebuttal witnesses after it has rested because the government has the burden of proof. Rebuttal witnesses serve largely the same function as cross-examination in that they are used as part of an attempt, in this case by the government, to disprove evidence submitted by the defendant or to disprove what the defense witnesses said. It is rare, but possible, for the federal district court judge to allow what is called surrebuttal on the part of the defense. A surrebuttal witness is called by a party to respond to the opposing party’s rebuttal.

Closing Arguments

Once all the witnesses have been called, both the AUSA and we, the federal defense criminal defense attorneys, have presented all their evidence, and both have indicated to the court that they have rested, the next step is closing argument.

According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government goes first, the defense attorneys goes next, then the government gets another opportunity to rebut what the defense attorney has argued. The government gets to go first, and last, because they have the burden of proof.

Unlike the opening statement, in their final arguments, the AUSA and the federal criminal defense attorney may not only summarize the evidence presented but may also forcefully argue why the jury should find in their favor.

It is important to note, that district court judges will typically deny us the time, at the end of the trial, to leave and prepare our closing arguments.  It is typical to move right into closing arguments after all the evidence has been received by the jury, and any directed verdict motions made and denied.

The Jury is then instructed as to the applicable law through what is known as jury charges.

The main purpose of a jury is to resolve issues of fact. A jury will reach its verdict by taking the law as provided to them by the judge and applying to this law to the facts as they find them. In this way they will arrive at their verdict. This law is set forth in the jury instructions.

Judges routinely state they will rely mainly on the pattern instructions prepared by the Circuit Committee on Pattern Criminal Jury instructions.  We certainly research notable and useful jury charges and file such if we determine the pattern charges are not sufficient.

Deliberations and Verdict

The final stage in a federal criminal trial will be jury deliberations and verdict. The first thing the jury will do is select, often by voting, who will be their foreperson. Pattern jury instruction for the 11th circuit provides that the foreperson’s job is to do two things: (1) guide the jury’s deliberations and (2) be a liaison for communications with the court.

If the jury has questions, then normally, the foreperson will write it down, give it to the court officer who then gives the question to the judge. The jury may not tell anyone outside the jury where their “vote” stands or anything else about their deliberations. There is, however, no rule that says that only the foreperson may write down questions or give them to the court officer. In this way all jurors are “equal”.

In a criminal case the verdict must be unanimous in favor of acquittal or conviction. In a federal criminal case, a jury will be instructed they are to continue their deliberations until they have reached a unanimous decision. Pattern Jury Instructions on this issue provide that to find a defendant guilty in a federal criminal trial, the jury must unanimously agree that the government has overcome the presumption of innocence as to every element of the crime alleged and have done so with evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As set forth in another Pattern Jury Instruction, the jury will be told that they are not to consider punishment in their deliberations. Punishment is solely the province of the judge presiding over the case.

Once the jury has reached its verdict, another Pattern Jury Instruction provides that the foreperson mark the appropriate place for guilty or not guilty, have each member sign the form, then give it to the court officer, who will then give the form to the judge.

Upon learning that the jury has reached its verdict, the judge will resume the trial, making sure the defendant is in the courtroom. Finally, the verdict will be read in court.

Once the verdict is read, if you are found guilty, the deputies (who have moved in to position for this moment) will come forward and ask you to put your hands behind your back and take off shoe laces, jewelry, etc in order to go in to custody.  The federal criminal defense attorney immediately asks that the defendant remain out on an appeal bond, and the judge decides on whether or not to take the defendant in to custody at this time.

If you are found not guilty on all charges, then the case is over and closed.

Should you have any further questions about federal criminal defense trials please contact us.  We are here to help.

“Cyber extortion is unfortunately a rapidly growing threat and highlights the ever-growing need for corporations to remain vigilant in cybersecurity efforts,” said Sean Burke, Acting Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “This sentencing is just one example of the FBI working together to hold criminals that hide behind their computers accountable, regardless of their location.”

According to information presented in court, in June 2017, Purbeck purchased access to the computer server of a Griffin medical clinic on a darknet marketplace. He then used the stolen credentials to illegally access the computers of the medical clinic and removed records that contained the sensitive personal information of more than 43,000 individuals, including names, addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers.

In February 2018, Purbeck purchased access to a City of Newnan Police Department server on a darknet marketplace. Purbeck used the stolen credentials to hack into the City of Newnan’s computer systems and stole police reports and other documents, including personal information of more than 14,000 individuals.

Purbeck also attempted to extort a Florida orthodontist in July 2018, demanding a ransom payment in Bitcoin in return for his stolen patient files, threatening to sell the patient and personal information unless the orthodontist paid the ransom. Additionally, Purbeck threatened to sell the personal information of the orthodontist’s minor child. Purbeck harassed the orthodontist and his patients for 10 days with numerous threatening emails and text messages.

Song Wu, Chinese national, was indicted in September 2024, on charges for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft arising from his efforts to fraudulently obtain computer software and source code created by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), research universities, and private companies.

“Efforts to obtain our nation’s valuable research software pose a grave threat to our national security,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan. “However, this indictment demonstrates that borders are not barriers to prosecuting bad actors who threaten our national security.” According to information presented in court, Song allegedly engaged in a multi-year “spear phishing” email campaign in which he created email accounts to impersonate U.S.-based researchers and engineers and then used those imposter accounts to obtain specialized restricted or proprietary software used for aerospace engineering and computational fluid dynamics. This specialized software could be used for industrial and military applications, such as development of advanced tactical missiles and aerodynamic design and assessment of weapons. In executing the scheme, Song allegedly sent spear phishing emails to individuals employed in positions with the United States government, including NASA, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army, and the Federal Aviation Administration.  Song also sent spear phishing emails to individuals employed in positions with major research universities in Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio, and with private sector companies that work in the aerospace field. Song’s spear phishing emails appeared to the targeted victims as having been sent by a colleague, associate, friend, or other person in the research or engineering community. His emails requested that the targeted victim send or make available source code or software to which Song believed the targeted victim had access. According to the indictment, while conducting this spear phishing campaign, Song was employed as an engineer at Aviation Industry Corporation of China (“AVIC”), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Beijing, China.  AVIC manufactures civilian and military aircrafts and is one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

Ilya Lichtenstein, 35, of New York City, was sentenced recently to 60 months in federal prison for his involvement in a money laundering conspiracy arising from the hack and theft of approximately 120,000 bitcoin from Bitfinex, a global cryptocurrency exchange. According to information presented in court, Lichtenstein hacked into Bitfinex’s network in 2016, using advanced hacking tools and techniques. Once inside the network, Lichtenstein fraudulently authorized more than 2,000 transactions transferring 119,754 bitcoin from Bitfinex to a cryptocurrency wallet in Lichtenstein’s control. Lichtenstein then took steps to cover his tracks by deleting from Bitfinex’s network access credentials and other log files that could have revealed his conduct to law enforcement. Following the hack, Lichtenstein enlisted the help of his wife, Heather Morgan, in laundering the stolen funds. Lichtenstein, at times with Morgan’s assistance, employed numerous sophisticated laundering techniques, including using fictitious identities to set up online accounts; utilizing computer programs to automate transactions; depositing the stolen funds into accounts at a variety of darknet markets and cryptocurrency exchanges and then withdrawing the funds; converting bitcoin to other forms of cryptocurrency in a practice known as “chain hopping;” depositing a portion of the criminal proceeds into cryptocurrency mixing services; using U.S.-based business accounts to legitimize Lichtenstein’s and Morgan’s banking activity; and exchanging a portion of the stolen funds into gold coins. Additional information on this case is available on the United States Department of Justice’s website for large cases here.  

In investigating PPP loan fraud, the government first looks at the application itself.  How many employees does the company have?  Does that number match their payroll tax filings?  Are the 941‘s the same as what is on file at the IRS?  Has the owner(s) been convicted of or pled guilty to a felony with the past 5 years?  Do the bank statements submitted on the PPP loan application match the actual bank statements? Are there business expenses on the bank statements?  Was the bank account in a business checking account? When was the entity created?  Did the company apply for more than one loan?  Does the individual owner have multiple entities and apply for multiple loans?  Any inaccurate statements on the application can result in a charge under Under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud) – making false statements to an FDIC-insured financial institution, or making false statements to the SBA.  In addition, the CARES Act also has requirements for how companies use, and account for the use of, PPP loan funds.  Some of the more outrageous PPP loan fraud prosecutions have resulted due to individuals buying Range Rovers, Lamborghinis and rolex watches with PPP loan proeeeds, i.e. converting PPP loan funds for personal use.  Also, when seeking forgiveness for loans, companies must be very careful in what they submit.  Any false documentation submitted can result in prosecution.

So, should the government be inquiring about your PPP loan(s) or EIDL loans or any disaster relief funds, it is important to contact us immediately.  Being evasive or being unable to produce documentation of PPP Compliance will only increase issues that you will be facing.  Allow Conaway & Strickler, PC to help you with expert advice from experienced federal counsel. We are very familiar with the federal criminal investigative process with the SBA-OIG, IRS and the DOJ.

Conaway & Strickler, PC handles PPP loans nationwide. Meg Strickler has 25 plus years experience fighting federal criminal cases in the district courts across the country.

What reports are generated from my devices?

Cellebrite reports provide information about phone calls and text messages; but now it also provides a report on the data stored on these devices such as voicemails, images, and browsing history. From GPS location data to social media activity, cell phones can provide a treasure trove for law enforcement agencies to use to build their cases.

What protections do I have to prevent law enforcement from searching my devices?

Laws on the admission and use of this evidence in court are still evolving. In the Georgia Supreme Court case State v. Wilson, the court ruled search warrants for cell phone contents must specify the items being sought. This is to prevent a general search of a person’s belongings, which is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Do I have the same legal rights at the border that I would elsewhere in the United States?

The Supreme Court ruled that the police must get a warrant before searching someone’s cell phone in Riley v. California. The Supreme Court held that a warrant is generally required before a search of a cell phone seized incident to arrest. BUT, at the border, there is less protection. According to US Customs and Border Protection a person may be chosen for inspection for many different random reasons and thus there is less protections when crossing the border in or out of the US. What this means – you can be pulled for a secondary inspection and all of your devices can be searched without a warrant. They can also get an image from the hard drive of these devices and / or seize the devices at the border.

What do I do if I am asked to give my cell phone to law enforcement?

If you know your rights, you can comply when necessary. So, for example, if you are traveling internationally – do not travel with devices that you would not want searched. Furthermore, if you are driving and pulled over with drugs or a high amount of currency in your car, etc, your cell phone and / or other devices WILL be seized and analyzed.

And, please remember anything uploaded to the cloud is fair game for law enforcement. That’s a broad statement – but when you signed up for Instagram, Whats App, Google, TikTok, Facebook, Signal, Twitter/X, etc, you signed away any privacy rights. Those companies are fast to comply with law enforcement subpoenas giving whatever you posted/uploaded immediately to them.